APPLICATION PROGRAMMING: DATA MINING AND DATA WAREHOUSING

(1)

Wrocław University of Technology

Internet Engineering Henryk Maciejewski

PRACTICAL GUIDE

(2)

Project Office

ul. M. Smoluchowskiego 25, room 407 50-372 Wrocław, Poland

Phone: +48 71 320 43 77 Email: [email protected]

(3)

Introduction ... 4 PART I Data Mining ... 5 Formulation of the Problem Solved in this Guide ... 5 Building a Predictive Model in Enterprise Miner ... 7 Preparatory tasks ... 8 Sample data ... 9 Explore data ... 12 Modify data ... 17 Build predictive models ... 22 Assessment of performance of the models ... 30 Scoring new data ... 32 Working with imbalanced data – oversampling technique ... 36 PART II Data Warehousing ... 42 Overview of this Guide ... 42 Step 1 Building ETL process ... 43 Step 2 Building multidimensional model of data ... 44 Step 3 Building multidimensional cube ... 45 Tasks in Detail ... 46 How‐To Procedures and Hints ... 49 Further Reading ... 56

(4)

Introduction

The purpose of this “Guide to Data Mining and Data Warehousing” is to present the practical perspective of these technologies. This guide is intended to be used by the participants of the “Application Programming: Data Mining and Data Warehousing” course as the accompanying material prepared to supplement the theoretical part with application examples. Familiarity with the concepts and theory presented in the course materials is assumed and required to efficiently follow examples developed in this guide, although experience or familiarity with data mining and data warehousing software is not necessary.

Application examples shown here are based on samples from real life datasets, are formulated based on real life problems, and are implemented using practical tools: SAS Enterprise Miner software for the data mining part, and MS SQL Server Integration Services and Analysis Services for the data warehousing part. The most efficient way to proceed with this guide is to actively follow these examples, and to learn‐by‐doing, hence the guide will familiarize users with many features of the software tools used. As such it can be useful for self‐paced or guided lab practice in data mining and data warehousing technologies. For this purpose, the sample datasets elaborated in this guide will be made available to participants of the course.

The data mining part of this guide is focused on predictive modelling. We show how subsequent steps of data mining process, as guided by standard data mining methodologies, are practically implemented in Enterprise Miner. We introduce tools for data sampling, illustrate various techniques for explanatory analysis of data and discuss methods of data transformation to be used prior to building predictive models. Finally, we apply various classification models and demonstrate in‐depth analysis of predictive performance of these models. Special consideration is given to the challenging problem of classification based on highly imbalanced data. We discuss several approaches to improve recognition of the rare class (i.e., the class under‐represented in data), and show how these can be implemented in Enterprise Miner. We also illustrate some methods to fine‐tune performance of classifiers.

The data warehousing part presents a sample project in which a multidimensional data analysis / OLAP system is designed and implemented. We demonstrate sample tools for implementation of ETL (Extract‐Transform‐Load) scripts, we design the logical multidimensional model of data, and we finally design and implement a multidimensional cube.

(5)

PART I Data Mining

The purpose of this practical guide to data mining is to learn how data mining methods / tools can be used to solve predictive modelling tasks, in particular for building classification models based on real life data.

This guide introduces readers to the data mining tool SAS Enterprise Miner (ver. 6.x), which is an advanced system to support data mining tasks in commercial, massive data environments. Enterprise Miner provides a comprehensive set of tools to realize subsequent stages of the data mining process, following the SEMMA methodology (acronym derived from the steps of data mining process: Sample, Explore, Modify, Model, Assess). These steps consist in:

 Sample step: involves sampling very large data sets, including simple random or more advanced statistical sampling techniques used to create representative or oversampled smaller data sets from very large databases. As part of the Sample step, Enterprise Miner also provides tools for data preparation (merging, filtering, etc., or for sophisticated transformation using SAS 4GL language).

 Explore step: involves initial exploration of data in order to understand inconsistencies in data and to later design required data cleaning / transformation steps. Enterprise Miner provides tools for statistical analyses, interactive graphical exploration or clustering of data.  Modify step: involves data modification / preparation prior to model building. Enterprise

Miner provides tools for missing value imputation, transformation of variables, variable selection and dimensionality reduction (such as Principal Component Analysis).

 Model step: involves building statistical or machine learning models for classification and regression, such as decision trees, neural networks, regression methods and nearest neighbours. Boosting techniques, meta models and user created models are also possible.  Assessment step: involves analysis of predictive performance of the models and comparison

of competing models using various measures and techniques (e.g., with ROC curves or using cut‐off analysis). Assessment also involves management of the scoring programmes (in Enterprise Miner the scoring programmes can be exported in the form of SAS 4GL, C language, Java or PMML codes).

In addition to predictive modelling, Enterprise Miner also provides a number of tools used in other branches of data mining such as clustering, association rules mining, time series analysis, web mining (web log analysis).

In this guide, we focus on predictive modelling; we demonstrate a classification task realized on a real life dataset.

Formulation of the Problem Solved in this Guide

The sample data mining task solved in this guide consists in building a classifier for assessment of quality of products manufactured by a company. Quality assessment will be attempted based on parameters of the production process recorded by a number of sensors along the production line. The classifier will be built using historical database, where known quality of products is given alongside with process monitoring data. The task involves:

(6)

 Building a mathematical model of relationship between the product quality and production process parameters,

 Estimation of predictive performance, i.e., expected error rate when the classifier is used for new data, i.e., to assess quality of a new production batch.

The process monitoring data analyzed in this guide comes from a copper wire production plant, where the items produced are rolls of copper wire. A sample of the source data is shown in Figure 1 and variable names are listed in Table 1. Figure 1 Sample of the source data used for predictive model building The actual value of quality of an item is given in the column quality, where the values 1‐6 correspond to good quality and values exceeding 6 to poor quality items. All remaining columns (with the exception of part_no – part number in batch) represent process monitoring parameters related to temperatures, chemical impurities in material, etc. All these variables are marked in Table 1 as Input, which indicates that they will be used as predictors.

Table 1 Variables in copper quality database and their role in the model building task

Variable Type Role

level_o2 Num Input

part_no Num ID of product

quality Num Quality of

product

size_max Num Input

size_min Num Input

sum_eddy_f1 Num Input

sum_ferro_f1 Num Input

Temp Num Input

vel_max Num Input

vel_mean Num Input

vel_min Num Input

(7)

good or poor quality. Thus we will build a binary classifier, using as the target variable a binary equivalent of the quality variable (we denoted this qbin). The new variable qbin can be created by running the following SAS code: data lab.copper_bin; set lab.copper_wire;

if quality < 7 then qbin = 1; else qbin = 0; run; where the dataset copper_wire in the library lab contains the source data as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1, and copper_bin is the destination dataset with the column qbin appended. The code can be executed in SAS 9.2 (SAS Foundation).

The destination file copper_bin will be the basis for the predictive modelling task presented in the following section.

Building a Predictive Model in Enterprise Miner

This section presents how the data mining task outlined in the previous part can be solved using the SAS Enterprise Miner tool. Data mining tasks are solved in Enterprise Miner by building a process / data flow as illustrated in Figure 2. Development of the data processing flow is guided in Enterprise Miner by the SEMMA (Sample‐Explore‐Modify‐Model‐Assess) methodology. Following such methodology is recommended by data mining best practices in order to provide repeatable and robust models. SEMMA is considered the SAS‐specific implementation of the Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining methodology (CRISP‐DM).

This section is structured according to the SEMMA steps.

(8)

Figure 2 Overview of the EM process diagram created in this study Preparatory tasks Enterprise Miner is a project – oriented tool, so the first task is to create a new project for this study and to connect the source data to the project. Since all datasets are referenced in SAS through the means of libraries (i.e., LIBREFs which are references to folders / directories in the host operating system), a new library has to be created in the project to point to the location of the copper_bin source file.

These tasks are realized in the following steps:

Task Description

1 Create the new Project

The project is created using the Project Wizard launched by the File‐New‐Project menu. In the wizard, the following three elements are specified:  SAS server for the project  Project name and SAS server directory  SAS Folder location where project metadata will be stored For the first and the third point the default values can be left. The project name and server directory in this example are: copper and C:\robocza, which gives the final setting for the new project as shown below.

(9)

2 Connect the source data to the project 1. Create the new Library The source data used in this example is the copper_bin dataset. First, a new library has to be created to point to the location (OS folder) of this dataset – the library is created using the Library Wizard launched by the File‐New‐Library menu. 2. Create the new Data Source data source is created using the Data Source Wizard (File‐New‐Data Source menu). In the wizard, the following decisions are made:  A SAS table is selected that becomes the data source (in this example the dataset copper_bin is used, found in the library created in the previous step)  The column metadata are defined (such as the roles in the model and measurement levels of variables). In this step default values of metadata can be left, as proposed by the Metadata Advisor. Although the metadata could be corrected here, this will be done and explained in detail in the Sample data step.  All other settings should be accepted as proposed by the wizard. 3 Create the new Diagram Using the File‐New‐Diagram menu, the new diagram called copper is created. The diagram will be populated with Enterprise Miner nodes to form the process flow as illustrated in Figure 2. Sample data

In this step, we start building the process flow by connecting to and possibly sampling the data source, providing proper metadata for the variables and partitioning the data into training, validation and testing layers. These tasks are done in the following steps.

(10)

Task Description 1 Add to the diagram the Input Data node 1. Drag and drop onto the diagram pane the Input Data node found on the Sample toolbar. 2. Next, select the Input Data node and specify the data source that the node connects to (using the Data Source editor in the node’s Property pane). Select the copper_bin data source. 2 Setup metadata for the data source Prior to building a predictive model, variables must be properly described by metadata to indicate (a) the intended role of a variable in the process (target or predictor variable), and (b) the measurement level of a variable (as quantitative or class variable). Metadata pertaining to variables are setup using the Variables editor (available in the Input Data property pane), as shown below.

(11)

The role and measurement level of the copper_bin variables should be specified as follows. The qbin variable is used as the binary target, the part number and original value of quality variables are rejected from model building and all other variables are used as predictors with the interval measurement level (which indicates a quantitative variable). 3 Partition data Prior to training predictive models, input data must be divided into training, validation and

test partitions. The training partition is used to fit a predictive model to the data, the

validation partition is used to fine‐tune parameters of the model in order to avoid model

overfitting Model fine‐tuning consists in modification of such parameters of models as depth of a decision tree or the number of perceptrons in the hidden layer of a neural net, etc. The test partition can then be used to estimate the expected prediction error for new data. The data is split by connecting the Data Partition node (available in the Sample toolbox) as shown below.

Data Set Allocations property of the Data Partition node provides the size of partitions (as percentages of original data); default size can be left as is. The Exported Data property provides names of the training, validation and test datasets produced by the node.

(12)

Explore data The purpose of this step is to discover important characteristics of distributions of variables as well as inconsistencies, errors and outliers in data. Based on these findings, required data modifications can be designed in order to clean the data, impute missing values or transform variables to make some distributions less skewed or more normal‐like (e.g., by the log transformation). These steps are mandatory to ensure robust predictive models.

In this guide we focus on some Enterprise Miner tools for graphical exploration and for statistical analysis of data, such as:  Graph Explore,  MultiPlot,  StatExplore. These tools can be used as shown and explained in the following steps. Task Description 1 Perform graphical exploration of data Using the Graph Explore tool 1. Drag the Graph Explore icon into the diagram and connect to the Input Data node (the tool can be found in the Explore toolbar). 2. Run the tool (right click – Run menu). 3. Open Results window. Using View‐Plot menu of Results window open the Chart wizard to configure a relevant graphical summary of data.

The first observation we make is that the data are heavily unbalanced in terms of distribution of the target variable. The proportion of observations is about 95% vs 5% of good quality (qbin=1) and poor quality (qbin=0) items, respectively.

(13)

Building predictive models based on such data is generally difficult, as machine learning algorithms tend to bias the models towards accurate prediction of the majority class (qbin=1), with poor predictive performance of the rare class (qbin=0). To avoid this, several techniques will be discussed later in this guide, including oversampling representatives of the rare class.

The Graph Explore tool provides features for graphical analysis of distributions of predictors and mutual relationships of predictors. These include several types of statistical plots (density plot, boxplots etc.) as well as many types of interactive explanatory plots (such as 2D and 3D plot scatter plots, contour plots etc.)

An example of a Scatter Chart is shown below, illustrating the relationship between the variables level_o2 and temp, grouped by the target variable (qbin).

It can be observed from this plot that the upper tails of distributions of these two predictors correspond to poor quality items (qbin=0). This is an important finding, also confirmed for other predictors, as counter ‐ outlier techniques usually tend to remove these tails. In our study, we will use these techniques cautiously so as not to lose some significant portion of the rare class representatives from the training data. It should be noticed that all charts created in the Graph Explore tool are interactive, i.e., by

(14)

selecting an element on the plot (such as a point or group of points in scatter plot, a bin in the histogram etc.), corresponding observations in the tabular view of raw data are also selected. This allows for easy and efficient analysis of observations which contribute to untypical values in distributions of some variables. Graphical exploration using the Multiplot tool

To use this tool, connect its icon as shown in the diagram and Run the analysis (right click menu).

In the Results window, maximize the Train Graphs window to start quick, interactive inspection of distributions of subsequent variables. In this way we can efficiently scan through large data volumes to reveal illegal values / errors /outliers. An example of such analysis is shown below, where very small values of the size_min variable are immediately detected in the histogram below. Such erroneous observations will have to be filtered off in the Modify step.

We also observe that some variables have very skewed distributions (such as sum_ferro_f1, shown below). These variables can be later transformed to make the distribution more symmetric, which improves performance of regression or discriminant analysis methods.

Another interesting summary obtained from the Multiplot results window are descriptive statistics calculated for all interval variables (shown below). This result provides a number of hints related to required transformations of data.

(15)

The following observations can be made:  Some observations have very small or very high MIN or MAX values as compared to the mean value (e.g., level_o2 with erroneous MIN value, or vel_max and vel_mean with erroneous MAX value),  Some observations have very large standard deviation as compared with the mean,  All variables contain missing values (the number of missing values is given in the

NMISS column).

Based on these observations, required data filtering and transformation rules will be implemented in the next SEMMA step. 2 Perform statistical analysis of data – using the StatExplore tool The StatExplore tool allows to examine distributions of variables and analyze association of inputs with the (interval or class) target. Based on these analyses, variable selection can be realized in order to reduce dimensionality of predictive (or clustering) models. The StatExplore tool should be connected as shown in the diagram and executed (right click Run menu). In the Results window, the Variable Worth and Interval Variables : qbin charts are available (through the View‐Plot menu of the Results window).

(16)

prediction, as calculated by the decision tree algorithm.

Association of variables with the target is also shown in the following Scaled Mean Deviation plot. Here the (scaled) means in the “target=0” and “target=1” groups are compared with the overall mean of the variable (represented by the level of zero). This plot corresponds with the per‐group descriptive statistics shown next. For instance, the variable size_max realizes roughly the same mean value in the groups “qbin=1”, “qbin=0” and overall, hence its position on the right of the plot. On the other hand, the variable sum_eddy_f1 realizes similar mean value in the group “qbin=1” and overall, with much bigger mean in the “qbin=0” groups, which is clearly seen in the Mean Deviation chart.

(17)

Summarizing, the following conclusions can be drawn from the Explore step:  The data has heavily imbalanced distribution of target with roughly 5% of the rare class (poor quality items),

 Some predictors have clearly erroneous observations (such as the negative value of the level_o2), most of predictors have skewed distributions,

 Most of predictors include outlying observations, these however should be removed with caution (i.e., only when the value of predictor is beyond physical range of the variable), as outliers generally correspond to the rare class (poor quality) observations. These issues will be tackled in the following Modify and Model steps. Modify data The purpose of this step is to:  Remove observations with wrong or outlying values of input variables,  Transform variables to reduce skewness in distribution,  Impute missing values.

Transformations of data to reduce skew in distribution bring variables closer to the normal distribution, which improves performance of predictive models based on the assumption on normality of features (such as the LDA). Filling in missing data (e.g., based on values in similar observations or using more sophisticated approach, such as prediction based methods) may improve performance of regression methods or neural classifiers which otherwise ignore observations in which missing values occur. (Note that decision tree algorithms accept missing values as legitimate values of predictors).

In this guide, we demonstrate several features of Enterprise Miner used to modify data, such as features implemented in the following nodes:

(18)

 Filter,  Transform Variables,  Impose. The nodes should be connected to the Input Data as shown in the diagram below. Data transformations implemented with these nodes are outlined in the following procedure. Task Description 1 Filter observations containing erroneous inputs 1. Select the Filer node, which activates the node’s Property window as shown below. 2. In the Property window, setup conditions for filtering out observations, based on

values of class variables and interval variables. In this example, we change the Default Filtering Method for both class and interval variables to None (as these apply to all variables), and define specific filtering conditions for individual variables.

(19)

The tool offers several filtering methods, e.g., Standard Deviations from the Mean for interval variables. This method removes outliers, where outliers are defined by the 3 standard deviations from the mean condition.

In this example, we switch the Default Filtering Method to None. The default Standard Deviations from the Mean method would remove too many rare case (qbin=0) observations, as these observations are generally overrepresented in the far ends of distributions of predictors, as shown in the Explore stage. Thus we manually setup filtering conditions to remove wrong and preserve feasible albeit outlying data. We do this using the editor of filtering conditions for interval inputs (the editor is invoked as indicated by the arrow below). Next, we specify lower and upper limits for the inputs: level_o2 and vel_max as shown below (this removes observations with erroneous values in these variables).

(20)

2 Transform input variables to reduce skewness in distribution

1. Select the Transform Variables node, this activates the node’s Property window as shown below. 2. Open the transformations editor (as indicated by the arrow). In this example, we will apply the log transformation to the level_o2 input, as shown in the Method column of the transformations editor.

(21)

3 Impute missing values

1. Select the Impute node, which activates the node’s Property window as shown below. 2. Change the imputation method for class variables to None and for interval variables to Tree Surrogate, as shown below. There are several methods of missing value imputation, such as simple methods which fill in the mean or median of the variable’s distribution, or more sophisticated methods such as the ones based on robust M‐estimators of distribution location parameter, etc.

In this example, we use the tree based imputation method which calculates the missing value as predicted by the remaining inputs (for the purpose of this analysis, the variable with missing values is regarded as the target).

We note that data transformation and missing value imputation nodes in Enterprise Miner do not override the original variables. Instead they add new variables to the dataset, with names based on the type of transformation, as shown in the metadata listing below.

E.g., the level_o2 variable was first logged to create the new LOG_level_o2 variable, which was later transformed with the Impute node to create the IMP_LOG_level_o2 variable. The ‘old’ variables are

(22)

rejected from analysis and the modified variables labeled as inputs, i.e., will be used as predictors (this is done by the Role metadata column). The metadata can be inspected and modified if necessary using the Metadata node as shown in the diagram below. This node could be used for manual feature selection, i.e., to include or reject variables based on association of inputs with the target (see results of the StatExplore node).

In this example we use the Metadata node only for illustration on how transformation nodes work and hence this node will not be shown in the following diagrams.

Build predictive models

In this step, we will build different predictive models to estimate the target, i.e., to classify the manufactured items as good or poor quality. We will try:

 Decision trees,  Neural networks,  Logistic regression,

(23)

 Memory based reasoning method (i.e., the nonparametric k nearest neighbours classifier). We will also demonstrate how feature selection can be realized in Enterprise Miner. Strictly speaking, this step is not crucial in our study, since the number of variables is relatively small. However in many real life problems with hundreds or more features, feature selection reducing dimensionality of data is mandatory, since many noisy features lead to deterioration in model performance and increase processing time and memory requirements.

Another important issue to consider prior to fitting a predictive model is definition of the criterion for model selection / comparison. By default, predictive models attempt to minimize the overall misclassification rate. This does not necessarily guarantee the optimal performance, especially if the consequences (costs) of the 01 and 10 misclassification decisions are different. In such studies, minimization of misclassification costs (or alternatively maximization of profits) might be the right criterion for model selection. This issue is discussed in the next section on Target profiling.

In this study, we also have to consider the problem of highly imbalanced data (as the poor quality class is represented by only ca 5% of observations). Predictive models usually demonstrate poor performance for the rare class. The reasons for this and the methods to tackle the problem are discussed in the Working with imbalanced data section.

Target profiling

The target profile is used to specify costs of 01 and 10 misclassifications. Target profiles are also applied in non binary classification problems, when costs of ci  cj decisions are provided in the form of the cost matrix, with ci, cj denoting the class labels.

Once defined for the target variable, the target profile is used by the model fitting algorithms to attempt to minimize the misclassification costs or maximize the overall profit. The target profile is setup using the procedure outlined below. Task Description 1 Associate the Target profile with the qbin variable 1. Select the Input Data node, which activates the node’s Property window. 2. In the Property window, open the Decisions editor as shown below. In the Decision Processing window, click the Build button, which creates the default target profile for the qbin variable.

(24)

3. The target event level is selected based on the target level order. The target event level is later used to define the meaning of sensitivity of the classifier; also the (logit of) probability modelled by the logistic regression is related to the target event. In our case, we accept the event level of 1 (which translates into the decision of the classifier that an item is of good quality; also sensitivity of the model, reported later in the “Assessment of performance of the models” section will denote probability of correct recognition of the good quality item).

(If event level of 0 makes interpretation of classifier’s decisions easier, the event level can be changed by setting the Target level order to Ascending in the metadata associated with the target variable. Generally, the event level is selected as the first value in the list of sorted values of the target). 2 Define decision weights

In Decision Weights editor (shown in the following picture), we specify costs (or profits) associated with particular decisions by the classifier, where:

 DECISION1 means classify as good quality (qbin=1),  DECISION2 means classify as poor quality (qbin=0), as indicated by the Decision tab (see the second picture).

In the weights (or profits) matrix shown below, we reflect the following scenario (this scenario is based on the actual business perspective as seen by the copper company, albeit the values of profits/costs are fictitious):

 If an actually good quality item (level=1) is classified as good quality (DECISION1), then the company makes the profit of 10.

 If an actually poor quality item (level=0) is classified as good quality (DECISION1), then the company makes the profit of ‐100 (i.e., makes a loss, due to having to pay high warranty costs to its customer, exceeding prior profits).

 If an item is classified as poor quality (DECISION2), then the company sells the product as second quality, thus cheaper, and makes the profit of 5, irrespective of the actual quality.

(25)

We select the maximize decision function which is consistent with our interpretation of the values entered as profits (if costs were entered, then the minimize decision function would have to be selected).

Once the target profile and the weights matrix is associated with the target, subsequent builds of predictive models will attempt to maximize the profit (or minimize costs) as the criterion for classifier selection.

Working with imbalanced data

If members of one class are rare in the training data (as the poor quality qbin=0 items are in our study), then classifiers usually perform poorly for this class. The following reasons make detection of rare cases challenging:

 A priori probability Pr(c1) of the rare class (denoted c1) is small, as compared with a priori probabilities of remaining classes. Since the a posteriori (or posterior) probability of this class is proportional to its a priori probability: | ~ | , where x denotes the vector of features of an item to classify, then it may be hard to find items x for which Pr(c1|x) wins among all classes.

 Iterative machine learning algorithms (such as neural nets) tend to fine‐tune the weights towards good recognition of the frequent class. The rules for recognition of the rare class tend to become very weak as training examples for this class are presented infrequently to the weights modification algorithm.

(26)

For these reasons, working with imbalanced data requires special techniques to improve detection of the rare cases.

In this guide we demonstrate two techniques that are feasible in Enterprise Miner:

 Data oversampling: an artificial training dataset is constructed where the rare cases are oversampled so that frequencies of the classes are balanced. Obviously, performance of predictive models is later measured based on the original (i.e., imbalanced) proportions of classes.

 Boosting recognition of the rare class by the means of decision weights matrix. For instance, if the classifier tends to classify many poor quality items (level qbin=0) as good quality (DECISION1), then we may make the classifier avoid the 01 misclassification by applying a high cost of this decision. In this way, we can favour the “pro rare case” decisions which will boost specificity of models.

Note that this approach is based on the same Decision Weights matrix as used before in the Target profiling section. However, decision weights defined previously were supposed to reflect the actual consequences of wrong and correct decisions. Here decision weights are simply the means to boost recognition of the otherwise “neglected” class.

In this study, we will start with the second approach, as the previously specified Decision Weights matrix works against the wrong, although likely, 01 decisions. This should improve recognition of the poor quality items. We will verify this supposition by comparing the classifier built using the decision weights matrix with the original one trained to minimize the overall misclassification rate. Later in this study, we will also attempt the first method, i.e., we will retrain models based on oversampled data.

It is generally not clear whether oversampling leads to any significant improvement as compared to the method based on decision weights, considering the fact that oversampling actually removes data from the over‐represented class (as shown later). Simulation studies indicate that for 3 or more class recognition problems oversampling seems to be the method of choice, however for binary classification little improvement is often observed after rare class recognition has already been boosted by decision weights. The oversampling approach is explained in detail in section Working with imbalanced data – . Using predictive modelling nodes We will build and compare five classifiers:  Decision tree,  Neural network (multilayer perceptron),  Neural network preceded by a variable selection node,  Logistic regression using forward feature selection method,

 Memory Based Reasoning (MBR), which is a simple nonparametric nearest neighbours classifier.

To build these classifiers, predictive modelling nodes should be added to the diagram as shown below.

(27)

Once the classifiers are fitted to data, the modelling nodes provide the following technical details to the user:  detailed information about performance of the models measured for the training, validation and test partitions in terms of misclassification rate, total profit etc.,

 detailed information about the fitting process (such as details on subsequent iterations of the forward feature selection process in logistic regression, error rates for subsequent iterations of a neural network, etc.),

 access to the model code in the form of a standalone SAS 4GL program.

Systematic analysis and comparison of performance of the fitted models follows in the section devoted to the Assessment step.

Based on the decision tree model, we will now explain how a model can be analyzed using its Results screen.

The fitted tree is presented graphically, as schematically shown below. Based on performance on validation data, the algorithm fine‐tuned the tree to have the depth of 5.

(28)

We can examine the tree in the equivalent form of English language rules, where subsequent nodes correspond to the leaf nodes in the graphical representation of the tree. The nodes are related to classification decisions of the tree model, with the majority class in a particular node indicating the tree’s answer. IF Imputed vel_min < 10.050000191 THEN NODE : 2 N : 79 1 : 11.4% 0 : 88.6% IF 22.5 <= Imputed sum_eddy_f1 AND 10.050000191 <= Imputed vel_min THEN NODE : 7 N : 26 1 : 0.0% 0 : 100.0% IF 4.5 <= Imputed sum_ferro_f1 AND Imputed sum_eddy_f1 < 22.5 AND 10.050000191 <= Imputed vel_min THEN NODE : 11 N : 10 1 : 0.0% 0 : 100.0% IF 9.3181616203 <= Imputed: Transformed level_o2

AND Imputed sum_ferro_f1 < 4.5 AND Imputed sum_eddy_f1 < 22.5 AND 10.050000191 <= Imputed vel_min THEN NODE : 13 N : 5 1 : 20.0% 0 : 80.0% IF Imputed vel_max < 12.349999905 AND Imputed: Transformed level_o2 < 9.3181616203

AND Imputed sum_ferro_f1 < 4.5 AND Imputed sum_eddy_f1 < 22.5 AND 10.050000191 <= Imputed vel_min THEN NODE : 14 N : 3874 1 : 98.3% 0 : 1.7% IF 12.349999905 <= Imputed vel_max AND Imputed: Transformed level_o2 < 9.3181616203

AND Imputed sum_ferro_f1 < 4.5 AND Imputed sum_eddy_f1 < 22.5 AND 10.050000191 <= Imputed vel_min THEN NODE : 15 N : 5 1 : 20.0% 0 : 80.0%

(29)

validate and test partitions:

We observe that the misclassification rate for the test data (i.e., expected error rate for new data) equals about 1.5%, and the total profit expected from 3002 items in the test partition equals 25015, which translates into average profit per item of 8.33. Note that if all the items were actually good quality and all classification decisions were correct, then the total profit would amount to about 30 thousand. The difference (of ca 5 thousand) is due to

 some poor quality items in the batch (this accounts for ca 0.75K difference),  the classifier’s errors (these account for majority of the difference, i.e., over 4K).

Another interesting perspective in analysis of the tree model is based on the Classification chart, where we observe that the rare class (qbin=0) is indeed much more difficult to properly classify, while items of the frequent class are classified almost perfectly.

Analysis of the tree model also provides information about importance of inputs for prediction of target, as shown below. This information may be useful for implementation of feature selection

(30)

rules. It can be observed that the tree selects only the first five variables on top of the list below as predictors for estimation of the target.

The tree node offers several other interesting methods for analysis of the model, such as e.g., lift analysis. These methods are however more appropriate for problems where the task consists in selection of items with the highest probability of event. In our case, the problem consists in quality prediction of all the items with the criterion to minimize the cost of wrong decisions (or maximize overall profit).

Similar in‐depth analysis of the fitted models is available with other nodes (Neural Network, Regression, MBR). However, in the next section we will concentrate on comparison of the models in terms of some simple practical criteria.

Assessment of performance of the models

The purpose of this SEMMA step is to evaluate and compare models in terms of their practical usefulness. The models can be compared using several criteria such as the profit/loss, misclassification rate, or using ROC curves or cut‐off analysis.

Overall assessment of fitted models is realized with the Model Comparison node, added to the diagram after the modelling nodes (see diagram below).

(31)

The Model Comparison node provides several tools for analysis of the models, such as the ROC curves as shown below. The ROC analysis indicates that the models demonstrate similar performance, where sensitivity of ca 100% inevitably translates into about 20% (=1‐specificity) error rate in recognition of the other (poor quality) class. Note that sensitivity is related to the target event of 1, i.e., recognition of good quality (frequent) class. The ROC analysis is consistent with the rare class recognition problem, described previously. In terms of selection of the winning model, no firm conclusion can be made based on the ROC curves. The tree, neural network models and regression perform similarly (with slightly better results of the tree expected for the test data), while the MBR (nearest neighbours) classifier is remarkably weaker. The qualitative conclusions from the ROC analysis can be quantitatively confirmed through a number of criteria summarized in the table below. These measures are calculated for the test partition, i.e., similar performance can be expected for new data. Whereas all the models misclassify roughly 2% of cases, the tree model slightly outperforms other models in terms of the total (and average per decision) profit, as well as in terms of the total number of wrong classifications.

Test: KS Statistic Test: Average Profit

Test: Average Squared Error Test: Roc Index

Test: Average Error Function Test: Bin 2Way KS Prob Cutoff Test: Cum % Captured Response Test: Percent Captured Response Test: Freq of Classified Cases Test: Divisor for ASE

Test: Error Function Test: Gain

Test: Gini Coefficient

Test: Bin-Based 2Way KS Statistic Test: KS Probability Cutoff Test: Cumulative Lift

Test: Lift

Test: Maximum Absolute Error

Tree Reg Neural Neural2 MBR 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.62 8.66 8.41 8.38 8.34 7.68 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.26 0.99 0.94 0.94 0.97 0.91 10.39 10.43 10.46 10.32 10.37 5.18 5.16 5.20 5.13 5.17 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 6004.00 6004.00 6004.00 6004.00 6004.00 423.79 464.20 454.30 483.11 1552.93 3.61 4.01 4.36 2.97 3.43 0.77 0.78 0.82 0.73 0.71 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.69 0.62 0.80 0.94 0.89 0.92 0.88 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.04 1.03 1.03 0.99 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00

(32)

Test: Misclassification Rate Test: Sum of Frequencies Test: Total Profit

Test: Root Average Squared Error Test: Cumulative Percent Response Test: Percent Response

Test: Sum of Squared Errors Test: # of Wrong Classifications

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 3002.00 25985.00 25240.00 25155.00 25035.00 23060.00 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 98.95 99.34 99.67 98.34 98.77 98.95 98.67 99.33 98.00 98.77 85.85 95.11 95.20 100.87 133.87 46.00 51.00 54.00 57.00 79.00 Again, the Model Comparison node provides several other tools for assessment of models, such as lift analysis; these however do not bring useful interpretation for the problem of quality prediction, and hence are omitted in this guide.

More in‐depth analysis of the winning model will be presented in the next section on Scoring new data. Scoring new data The purpose of this section is to explain  how the predictive model (e.g., the winning model selected by the Assessment step) can be used to classify (score) new data, and  how the scoring code can be maintained. We will also examine contents of the dataset produced by the scoring code and explain how these scored datasets can be the basis for more in‐depth analyses using custom SAS coding. The tool used for scoring new data and for management of scoring codes is the Score node. The node can be connected to:  any node that produces the scoring code (such as the predictive modelling nodes used in this study),  the Model Comparison node – in this case the Score node will obtain the winning model from the preceding node (the winning model is selected based on a single criterion specified in the properties of the Model Comparison node). In this example, we connect the Score node directly to the Decision Tree node, as shown below. The functionality of the Score node allows to:

(33)

 Obtain the scoring code from the preceding node. The scoring code can be then managed outside the Enterprise Miner environment. The scoring code can be exported in the following languages: SAS 4GL, C, Java, PMML.

 Execute the scoring code against a dataset connected to the Score node. Normally, this dataset is connected to the Score node using the Input Data node with the metadata role of Score. Alternatively, the scoring code is applied for the train, validate and test partitions (these data sets are passed through to the Score node).

In this example, we will use the Score node to classify data in the test partition, since predictive performance for this partition is a reliable measure of expected performance for new data. The Exported Data property of the Score node indicates where the results of scoring are placed by the node. In this example the scored test data is found in the EMWS9.Score_TEST dataset. The variables in this dataset involved in the classification process are listed by the node in its Results screen as shown below. These include the predictors used by the tree model as well as variables produced by the tree node or the score node to provide detailed technical information pertaining to the classification process.

(34)

The following variables provide interesting technical information about the process of classification: D_QBIN Contains the predicted class level (quality of an item). The prediction is done by the classifier fine‐tuned to maximize profit (i.e., built using the target profile Decision Weights matrix). I_QBIN Contains the predicted class label, produced by the classifier fine‐tuned to minimize the overall number of misclassified items (i.e., built without using the target profile Decision Weights matrix). The name given to this variable by the scoring node is EM_CLASSIFICATION.

EM_EVENTPROBABILITY The probability associated with the classifier’s decision that an item is good quality.

EM_PROBABILITY The probability of the decision finally made by the classifier. This probability is estimated as:

EM_PROBABILITY = max(EM_EVENTPROBABILITY, 1‐ EM_EVENTPROBABILITY)

Given this technical output appended to the results of scoring dataset (i.e., EMWS9.Score_TEST), further in‐depth analysis of the model itself or of the scored data is possible using custom SAS coding. To illustrate this, we will post‐process results of scoring to calculate the coincidence matrix and the sensitivity and specificity parameters of the model. To do this, the SAS Code node is connected to the Score node, as shown below. In order to compute the coincidence matrix, the following SAS code is placed in the SAS Code node (the Code Editor is available through properties of this node):

proc freq data=emws9.score_test; tables qbin*d_qbin;

tables qbin*i_qbin; run;

(35)

relationship between two classification variables. In this example, we use the FREQ procedure to compare:  the actual quality of copper (qbin) with the quality predicted using the profit maximization rule (this decision is coded in the d_qbin classifier’s output variable), or  the actual quality of copper (qbin) with the quality predicted using the misclassification rate minimization rule (this decision is coded in the i_qbin classifier’s output variable). The coincidence matrixes summarizing performance of these two classifiers are given below. We also calculate the total profit and misclassification rates. The conclusions can be summarized as follows:  The model based on decision weights indeed realizes higher total profit as compared to the original classifier (25985 vs. 25015), although the total number of misclassifications is higher (72 vs. 46).

 Improvement in the total profit is achieved by reducing the number of the costly 01 classification errors (from 41 to 30), at the expense of increased 10 error rate.

Classifier fine tuned to maximize the total profit

Classifier fine tuned to minimize the misclassification rate

Table of qbin by D_QBIN

qbin D_QBIN(Decision: qbin) Frequency| Percent | Row Pct | Col Pct |0 |1 | Total ---+---+---+ 0 | 105 | 30 | 135 | 3.50 | 1.00 | 4.50 | 77.78 | 22.22 | | 71.43 | 1.05 | ---+---+---+ 1 | 42 | 2825 | 2867 | 1.40 | 94.10 | 95.50 | 1.46 | 98.54 | | 28.57 | 98.95 | ---+---+---+ Total 147 2855 3002 4.90 95.10 100.00

Table of qbin by I_qbin

qbin I_qbin(Into: qbin) Frequency| Percent | Row Pct | Col Pct |0 |1 | Total ---+---+---+ 0 | 94 | 41 | 135 | 3.13 | 1.37 | 4.50 | 69.63 | 30.37 | | 94.95 | 1.41 | ---+---+---+ 1 | 5 | 2862 | 2867 | 0.17 | 95.34 | 95.50 | 0.17 | 99.83 | | 5.05 | 98.59 | ---+---+---+ Total 99 2903 3002 3.30 96.70 100.00

TOTAL PROFIT 25985 TOTAL PROFIT 25015

TOTAL # OF MISCLASSIFICATIONS 72 TOTAL # OF MISCLASSIFICATIONS 46

These models can also be compared in terms of sensitivity and specificity. These parameters compare as follows:

(36)

 model on the left: sensitivity=98.54% , specificity=77.78%  model on the right: sensitivity=99.83% , specificity=69.63%

Observe that (1‐specificity) is the misclassification rate for the rare class (poor quality items): this parameter was reduced from ca 30% to 22%. This analysis confirms that the decision weights matrix leads to improvement in recognition of the rare class.

Working with imbalanced data – oversampling technique

Classifiers built using heavily imbalanced training data (i.e., data where some class shows much lower frequency than other classes) tend to realize low predictive performance of the rare class. We discussed reasons for this previously (see section Working with imbalanced data) and outlined the methods feasible in Enterprise Miner to improve recognition of the rare class.

In the previous section, we demonstrated that a properly designed decision weights matrix can be regarded as a tool to improve recognition of the rare class.

This section is devoted to data oversampling – technique commonly discussed in data mining literature. The method consists in preparing a sample of data in which frequencies of classes are more similar to each other than in the original dataset (or even equal), and building a classifier based on this sample. Doing so, we need to make sure that the classifier does not learn false a priori (or prior) probabilities of classes, representative for the oversampled data, but completely wrong for the real data.

Here we explain how this task can be implemented in Enterprise Miner and demonstrate performance of this approach. In this example, we focus only on oversampling as a method to improve recognition of the rare class, so the decision weight matrix will not be used, to avoid combining effects of these two approaches. Hence, we modify the process diagram as shown below by adding:

 a new Input Data node (note that we will modify the target profile of this node to remove the effect of non‐symmetric decision weights),

(37)

In configuration of the new Input Data node (which should point to the same data source as the one used before), we make sure that the Decision Weights matrix does not favour any decision (i.e., the costs are symmetric as shown below).

Next, we must make sure that the Prior Probabilities associated with the classes reflect the true frequencies of classes observed in real data. If these values are not set correctly (e.g., due to previously done oversampling of the COPPER_BIN data source), then the classifier will learn improper priors based on frequencies in the oversampled data. In this example, we leave these probabilities as is, as they agree with actual frequencies of good and poor quality items manufactured.

(38)

Next, we configure the Sample node for oversampling. The Sample node can be used to realize very diverse scenarios of data sampling. In order to make the node do the oversampling properly, it is essential that the following configuration guidelines are carefully observed.

The required configuration elements of the Sample node (as indicated by arrows on the picture above) are explained next.

Sample Method: Stratify This setting guarantees that the algorithm will sample observations from individual classes (or strata) so that user specified proportions of the classes are achieved in the sample. These proportions are specified through the Stratified and Level Based Options properties. (If a variable other than the target variable should be used for data stratification, then this variable should be indicated by the Stratification Role in the Variables metadata).

Stratified Criterion: Level Based This setting informs the algorithm that sample proportions will be defined in terms of percentages (or counts) pertaining to the

(39)

the sample will be defined based on the level qbin=0 (i.e., the rare class). Level Based Option Level Selection: Rarest Level This setting means that the sample proportions specified further are related to the rare class (i.e., qbin=0). Level Based Option Level Proportion: 100

This setting makes the algorithm create the sample with 100% of the rare class items available in the original dataset (note that this level, i.e., qbin=0 was chosen previously).

Level Based Option Sample Proportion: 25

This setting means that the selected level (i.e., qbin=0) will contribute 25% observations to the sample, with the remaining 75% randomly selected from the frequent class (qbin=1). The effect of oversampling can be verified through the Results window of the Sample node (shown below). Data=DATA

Numeric Formatted Frequency

Variable Value Value Count Percent qbin 0 0 449 4.49 qbin 1 1 9551 95.51 Data=SAMPLE

Numeric Formatted Frequency

Variable Value Value Count Percent

qbin 0 0 449 25 qbin 1 1 1347 75

It can be observed that the sample indeed contains all (449) poor quality items available in data. However, in the sample this represents 25% observations, which gives the proportion of the classes in the sample as 1:3. Thus the proportion is significantly higher as compared to the original proportion of ca 1:20 (1:19).

Note however that this scenario actually realizes oversampling of the rare class by “undersampling” of the frequent class. This means that trying to e.g., balance proportions of classes would result in a yet smaller sample of 2x449 items. So the obvious problem with oversampling is related to losing (presumably large) part of the training data in the frequent class. It is not clear when this effect of loosing information through oversampling dominates the desired effect of improvement in rare class recognition.

(Note that an alternative oversampling scenario could be implemented, where the rare class observations are actually sampled repeatedly. This is however not implemented in Enterprise Miner and would required custom SAS coding).

(40)

In order to observe the effect of oversampling on recognition of the rare class, we execute the SAS Code node (see diagram above). This calculates the coincidence matrix for the tree algorithm, as shown below (construction of the coincidence matrix is explained in section Scoring new data). This result confirms that recognition of rare class improves due to oversampling. However, based on this results (calculated for oversampled test partition), estimation of the total average profit is not straightforward, as in reality a different proportion of good/poor quality items is expected.

Classifier built on oversampled data Table of qbin by I_qbin

qbin I_qbin(Into: qbin) Frequency| Percent | Row Pct | Col Pct |0 |1 | Total ---+---+---+ 0 | 107 | 28 | 135 | 19.85 | 5.19 | 25.05 | 79.26 | 20.74 | | 93.04 | 6.60 | ---+---+---+ 1 | 8 | 396 | 404 | 1.48 | 73.47 | 74.95 | 1.98 | 98.02 | | 6.96 | 93.40 | ---+---+---+ Total 115 424 539 21.34 78.66 100.00 We also observe that improvement in specificity of the classifier obtained here is slightly better than improvement achieved with the decision weights matrix (see previous section). However, we should be cautious trying to interpret this observation as a firm conclusion about higher technical merit of oversampling. We generally observe that oversampling seems to produce lower total profit measure than the decision based approach (results not shown here).

Overall performance of the fitted models is additionally reported by the Model Comparison node through the Event Classification Table (calculated for the train and validation partitions). Below we compare the oversampled model with the original model (no decision weights used). Based on these results, specificity of models (i.e., recognition of rare cases) can be estimated as

where TN is the number of True Negatives and FP is the number of False Positives summed up for train and validate partitions. We generally observe higher specificity for oversampled models, although at the price of deterioration in models’ sensitivity (=TP/(TP+FN)), where TP is the number of True Positives and FN is the number of False Negatives (again summed up for train and validation partitions).

(41)

MODEL BASED ON OVERSAMPLED DATA Event Classification Table

Model Selection based on Test: Average Profit (_TAPROF_)

Model Data False True False True Node Model Description Role Target Negative Negative Positive Positive

Tree Decision Tree TRAIN qbin 4 132 47 535 Tree Decision Tree VALIDATE qbin 5 92 43 399 Neural Neural Network TRAIN qbin 9 136 43 530 Neural Neural Network VALIDATE qbin 12 88 47 392 Neural2 Neural Network (2) TRAIN qbin 2 128 51 537 Neural2 Neural Network (2) VALIDATE qbin 3 88 47 401 Reg Regression TRAIN qbin 6 123 56 533 Reg Regression VALIDATE qbin 6 88 47 398 MBR MBR TRAIN qbin 2 97 82 537 MBR MBR VALIDATE qbin . 62 73 404

MODEL BASED ON ORIGINAL DATA

Event Classification Table

Model Selection based on Test: Average Profit (_TAPROF_)

Model Data False True False True Node Model Description Role Target Negative Negative Positive Positive

Tree Decision Tree TRAIN qbin 11 114 66 3808 Tree Decision Tree VALIDATE qbin 3 100 34 2862 Neural Neural Network TRAIN qbin 8 105 75 3811 Neural Neural Network VALIDATE qbin 4 91 43 2861 Neural2 Neural Network (2) TRAIN qbin 7 110 70 3812 Neural2 Neural Network (2) VALIDATE qbin 7 97 37 2858 Reg Regression TRAIN qbin 11 97 83 3808 Reg Regression VALIDATE qbin 7 91 43 2858 MBR MBR TRAIN qbin 0 72 108 3819 MBR MBR VALIDATE qbin 0 62 72 2865

APPLICATION PROGRAMMING: DATA MINING AND DATA WAREHOUSING

Contents

Introduction

PART I Data Mining

Formulation of the Problem Solved in this Guide

Building a Predictive Model in Enterprise Miner